Depreciation and routine compliance expenses disallowance did not prove inaccurate particulars or misreporting; penalty sustained only on foreign trav...
Perishable goods detained in transit were ordered to be released to the petitioner because the demand order disclosed no concrete or prima facie material negating the petitioner's ownership of the consignment. The Court held that release had to follow compliance with the statutory payment required from the owner under Section 129(1)(a) of the GST law, and that the revenue could not withhold release merely on a disputed ownership basis. It also clarified that, if the petitioner did not pursue the statutory appeal and the demand attained finality, the revenue remained free to proceed in accordance with law.
Perishable goods detained in transit were ordered to be released to the petitioner because the demand order disclosed no concrete or prima facie material negating the petitioner's ownership of the consignment. The Court held that release had to follow compliance with the statutory payment required from the owner under Section 129(1)(a) of the GST law, and that the revenue could not withhold release merely on a disputed ownership basis. It also clarified that, if the petitioner did not pursue the statutory appeal and the demand attained finality, the revenue remained free to proceed in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
